It occurs to me that atheism by its very definition is negative.
It's anti-theism, i.e. against the belief in God. Against the belief of the existence of God.
It is very difficult to enter into a conversation with anyone when you start out with the idea that you are against them. I'm not against peoples beliefs. I personally don't care what a person believes as long as they're not trying to force their belief system on others.
It's my thought that we need a positive descriptor rather than a negative one.
Starting on a positive note makes it more likely that you'll be listened to rather than disregarded.
Prosagacioust seems an apt term.
Procognitive would have been been good but that's already been hijacked by the medical industry.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
How about humanist?
Theists already consider humanism to be a negative term.
I've had theists with spittle flying off their lips saying: "What are you some kind of Humanist?"
I think we need a term that they haven't formed an opinion on, a new term.
A term that has a positive connotation and have them reaching for the dictionary. A term that will make them think before they speak.
Well, being a humanist isn't against anything, it's in favour of human beings:
Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.
That's positive. You could ask a theist what he doesn't agree with about that and have a useful conversation.
Been there, done that.
As it has already been defined theists fob it off as synonymous with atheism.
Bit stuck then, really. If people with belief can't relate to that then they're beyond the pale. But then we knew that right? LOL
"Bit stuck then, really. If people with belief can't relate to that then they're beyond the pale. But then we knew that right? LOL"
True dat.
,............... what's a Prosagacioust?? google pulls up no hits
",............... what's a Prosagacioust?? google pulls up no hits"
Google doesn't have it because like much of the English language it's an assembled term.
Full Definition of sagacious
1. 1 obsolete : keen in sense perception
2. 2a : of keen and farsighted perception and judgment : discerning
b : caused by or indicating acute discernment
plus
Definition of pro
1. 1 : an argument or evidence in affirmation
2. 2 : the affirmative side or one holding it
And you reacted just as theists will. You had no preconceived notion of its meaning so you tried to look it up.
Since it can't be looked up they have to ask the meaning giving us the opportunity to define the parameters of the conversation from a positive perspective.
YMMV
BTW: I'm not stuck on that particular word. Someone may well come up with another term that hasn't been used before so there's no prejudice, flows well and accomplishes the same thing even better.
The negativity of the word Atheism probably plays a bigger role than we think. But then, most Theists doesn't even seem to know what it actually means. Many seem to equate it to something like "hating god".
I haven't noticed that people think Humanist is synonymous with Atheist. Anyway, it sounds a lot more positive than Atheist. At least in my opinion, Humanist is a lot less stigmatized than Atheist.
And although the word Secular is also considered poisonous, I have seen a lot of people are using Secular Humanist.
"The negativity of the word Atheism probably plays a bigger role than we think. But then, most Theists doesn't even seem to know what it actually means. Many seem to equate it to something like "hating god".
You can always be counted on to understand things from a practical perspective. I appreciate that ability in you.
"Humanist is a lot less stigmatized than Atheist."
True, also as you have pointed out Secular and Humanist have been joined at the hip.
Yes, secular or humanist or both is a good solution.
Maybe when talking to an atheist but when addressing a theist, not so much.
@ Anser
"It occurs to me that atheism by its very definition is negative."
Atheist is negative as much as the lack of belief in the spaghetti monster is a negative, which is not negative at all.
This is a well known fact that you being a NOT something does not make you negative at all.
IT IS THE DEFAULT POSITION.
Does you being not a fascist make you a negative?
All humans are not something for sure since no human is "positively" everything.(holds every single position possible)
The idea of combining the person position on one topic with the person personality is idiotic at best.
If some people think like that, just avoid them, don't try to reason with them.
"It's anti-theism, i.e. against the belief in God. Against the belief of the existence of God."
Again same mistake magnified.
Anti-Theism, is not "Against the belief of the existence of God.", understand that this is your own personal opinion of what Anti-theism is.
Anti does mean Against, but Theism does not mean "belief of the existence of God."
Theism means the belief in a theistic god(not just any god), AND all the heavy baggage that comes with it.
(like the belief in heaven and hell, etc...)
An Anti-theists position is the opinion that theism(+ baggage) does more harm then good to the world.
Against the theistic concept.
If there was a concept called "womanevil" and you are against it, it means you don't agree with the concept for some reason.
Thus you are anti-Womanevil.
Atheist = state of being of a person
Anti-theist = opinion of a person
"I'm not against peoples beliefs."
You should be if you are a moral person.
If someone believes that one should rape his own daughter(call it Rapedaughter), you should be against it.(not against the person but against his belief)
Thus you should be an anti-Rapedaughter if you are a moral person.
A moral person should have the opinion that the BELIEF that one should rape his daughter is wrong.
(belief = accepting something without a rational explanation)
In a similar way, if someone believes that mass submission(mental slavery) is good and doubt itself is evil, you should be against it, even if "they're not trying to force their belief system on others."
"Starting on a positive note makes it more likely that you'll be listened to rather than disregarded."
True, we agree, but changing the meaning of words to make it more likable by the uninformed and stupefied people is at best idiotic.
Just don't start with your position, sometimes is OK to start with half truths, like saying you are a conservative of reason knowledge.
Those who do not understand that they should not judge a position before actually knowing what it stands for, won't change their mind because you use a different word.
If there is any hope at all for a theist to see the light, is when he tries to be honest with himself and use the doubt he uses in every day life to make his belief also his opinion.
(Opinion and belief are two different things)
Most Theists think either that they are the same thing or mistake their blind belief for a rational position(opinion).
With those honest people you can reason and use tact and it won't matter if you use nice new words, because they would actually be interested in your position and not KNOW that your position is wrong from start and try to invent a way to make it not appealing enough.
Jeff, I'm going to pull a quote directly from Answer's OP - "It is very difficult to enter into a conversation with anyone when you start out with the idea that you are against them. I'm not against peoples beliefs."
Jeff, would you disagree that athiests are against theists and vise versa?
"Jeff, would you disagree that athiests are against theists and vise versa?"
I quote myself here since you clearly missed it since it answer this very question.
"The idea of combining the person position on one topic with the person personality is idiotic at best.
If some people think like that, just avoid them, don't try to reason with them."
Atheists are not with or against theists in any way.
Atheists just do not accept what theists believe because the theists haven't yet presented a rational case for the theistic concept.
So they remain at the default position, the lack of belief, you were born like this.
A-Theist= Not theist= lacks belief in the theistic concept.
What about using Realism, Empiricism or Naturalism?
@Jeff
I think the point was not that "atheism is negative", but instead that the word is a negation and therefore gives a negative impact. As in "non-theist", where "non" is a negation.
This is called an argument of consequence fallacy.
"Arguing from consequences is speaking for or against the truth of a statement by appealing to the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. Just because a proposition leads to some unfavorable result does not mean that it is false."
Basically; just because the theist may get a negative impact from a simple correct definition we should change the definition even if it is the truth.
NO! the theist must learn like every other rational person the correct definition before making baseless claims about it.
It is called growing up.
I understand that they were brainwashed to reject reason if it is seems as attacking their faith, but we cannot change the truth because they cannot handle it.
We must be scientific as possible and hope that the next generation will be more reasonable.
It is already happening BTW, every generation that passes, religion is losing their grip, that is why they invest in 3'rd world countries to try to survive where there is no education or reason for that matter.
The moment we start making compromises about proper definitions is the moment science has lost to different human interpretation(bias).
Edit:
Since you seem to have missed my original reply point regarding the negative part.
Theist must learn that being a not something is also part of life and there is nothing wrong with that.
I used examples to show that everybody is a not something.
If they cannot handle the default position they have a problem and should solve it, instead of looking down on people who accept this fact of life.
"just because the theist may get a negative impact from a simple correct definition we should change the definition"
I don't think anyone in the thread is suggesting that any definition should be changed. But instead to find another term to use that is still accurate enough, but will help to avoid the initial negative view that the word "atheist" creates in the mind of the theist.
"the theist must learn like every other rational person..."
LoL. This is called the Thinking-that-theists-are-interested-in-correcting-their-ways fallacy.
No but seriously, in principle I agree that there is a point to be made about insisting on continuing to using the term "atheist". But...
You probably disagree, and I don't mind that at all, but sometimes I view the dilemma of reaching people from a viewpoint similar to a marketing consultant.
If we want to reach through to a person and begin a discussion, but that person misinterprets a "first impression" (like the word "atheist") and gets uncooperative and defensive before the discussion even begins, the chance of success is greatly diminished.
"If we want to reach through to a person and begin a discussion, but that person misinterprets a "first impression" (like the word "atheist") and gets uncooperative and defensive before the discussion even begins, the chance of success is greatly diminished."
yea, some theists get defensive immediately just by hearing the word atheists and there is no discussion at all after that.
.But what I was describing earlier was that those kind of people should be avoided in the first place.
Having a different word for the label atheist that does not have a "NOT" in it, won't change a thing at all.
Here is the part where I answered this question:
"Those who do not understand that they should not judge a position before actually knowing what it stands for, won't change their mind because you use a different word."
This reaction is not caused by a word, but by bias and indoctrination against a concept(it does not matter what it is called), there is no hope for those individuals and you may try how much you want.
After a few months the new word will start to signify the devil itself and you are back where you started.
If a person cannot even get past the basic fact that one should first understand the definition of something before trying to criticize it, the person is already a hopeless case.
If you really want to start a conversation avoid putting your position but instead use atributes of your position that are similar to what they(theists) agree with.
As I explained before,
"Just don't start with your position, sometimes is OK to start with half truths, like saying you are a conservative of reason/ knowledge."
This might get them to open up a little but their close mindedness won't change a bit.
People who are not looking for the truth, won't be reasoned with regardless of how you trick them to start the conversation.
@ The Pragmatic,
"If we want to reach through to a person and begin a discussion, but that person misinterprets a "first impression" (like the word "atheist") and gets uncooperative and defensive before the discussion even begins, the chance of success is greatly diminished."
You got it in one!
well, i'm a pretty extreme case, I live in the Dominican Republic, and here religion is huge... so much so that "secular" schools conduct morning prayer every morning before class. Here the quality of education is extremely poor, and people mostly don't even listen to arguments, because they cant understand them. The more polite ones will wait for you to finish and say "well, i don't know about that... what i do know is...", but usually any of the terms being discussed here will end up getting you accused of Satan worshiping.
If someone isn't open to understanding why you call yourself "atheist" he will be closed to whatever you say... keep using "atheist" it's gonna save you a lot of time.
"keep using "atheist" it's gonna save you a lot of time."
So true.
It is like a filter to have an idea who can be reasoned with or not.
@Third-world atheist,
".. keep using "atheist" it's gonna save you a lot of time."
In third world countries.